Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-08
THE BOYCOTT CASES.
JUDGE ATKINS FILES HIS OPINION on
THE DEMURRER.
Decision Of Judge wellford on the De-
murrer in the Bsughman Boy
colt Suit.

The Dispotch last week gave Judge
Atkins's decision on the demurrer In
the case Of the publishers Of the Labor
HcraM and the Boycott Committee of
the Richmond Typographical Union
in effect sustaining one count of the in
dictment and quashing the other. Yes
terday Judge Atkins filed his written
opinion.
Judge Atkins says:
The fret coun; Of the Indictment in this caee,
stripped Of its mere formal statements, Is In
substance as follows:
That there are certain trades unions In the
CITY OF Richmond, Of which the defendants are
members: that there II also in said city rher-
camille firm known "a Baughman BrO'hers'
printers aud statiOners, and that they have
lawful right 20 carry on their business tiiat
said defendants, ON The 4ih day OF February,
1874 and on many days thereafter, with force
and arms, we'll knowing these facts, ala unlaw-
fully and maliciously. wickedIy ana corrupt
ly. knowingly and Intentionally, c0mDine'
conapire, and confederate together 10 lnlure,
min. break up. and destroy the said Baugh-
man Brothers In their said business by unlaw-
fully, Wickody maliciOusly. ana cOrruptly'
knowingly and intentionally, making hTsilS
10 a great number Of peTsOns-to wit, u. j.
Myers and others kaamlng tneml All oi
whom had been heretofore regular cus-
toners Of said firm. that II they, the s1u
H. j. Myers and others, thereafter bol;ht
ANYTHING from said firm, or employed them IN
their said business as printers they the said de-
PENDANTS. would do all In their power 70 pieas
up and destroy the business OF ire salI IL. -
Myers and others, and by and through seil
threats they. the said defendants, dlq ueh
sud there by reason Of said threats,
drive ofi, hinder, deter. ana prevent ,ne
said II. j. Myers and others VINO nah lneIo-
tofore beeu customers Of the said Baugh-
man Brothers from buying anything irOm'
or from dealing with In any way, or from EN-
ploying as printers the said nru, ana they did
ihcn and there by their said unlawful, mali-
cious wicked and corrupt threats, and by their
said unlawful acts aforesaid. 10 a serious iniu-
~ 10 the business Of the said Baughman Bro
thors against the peace, &C.
Two questions have been presented 10 the
Court for determination by this demurrer:
1rt DO the facts upon which the indictment
is lRscd (Which have been fully stated by cOun-
seD amount 10 a conspiracy at common law III
virginia.
in the ndictment7
He then goes ON to show that the
common law Of England had been
adopted by Virginia.
II is conceded, however, he says. that such Of
the doctrines Of the common law as differ
gUfp IN local clffNIllbLhllftN ol lu Nudi
and principles Of our political system renders
inapIlicable 10 us are either not in force here
or must be 80 modified in their application a5
10 adapt them 10 our condition. We thus ei-
feet reasonable and substantial compliance
Herewith rather than n literal one.
Ar TO the cOmmon-lsw crtme OF conspiracy,
upon this subject IL IL not claimed mat IL IL
repugnant 10 the Bill Of Rights or Constitution,
nor that II has been altered by the Legislature
But II il contendcd by the defence that it Is not
adapted TO our institutions, and they refer 20
The dcakC Of ChiefJustice Shaw in the case
Of the ctmmonwcalth rs. Hunt I Metc., iii.
After an examination of the above
authority and several others, Judge At
kns concludes that the offence charged
is a crime against the public, and that III
adopting the common law of England
it has been made punishable in this
State.
UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY
But 10 define tho exact limit or extent Of the
law Of conspiracy as deducble from the de-
cisions would be a difficult. If not an impracti-
cable task. and shall not attempt It. CoRb-
nations against law or against individuals are
always dangerous 20 the pubic peace and So
curity To guard against tho union OF indi
viduale to effect an unlawful design is not easy.
and 10 detect and punish them Is olten eN.
trCmely dificult. The unlawful cOnfedera'y
is therefore, punished TO prevent any act IA
execution OF IL. But the law by 10 means lll-'
tends 20 exclude society from The bencnts ot
united effort for Legitimate purposes and suc1
a. promote the wcll-being OF individuals Or 90
the public. II uses the word conspiracy In L.
tad sense. An act may be immoral Tor l'-
stance, without being indlctable. but When IT,.
moral acts are committed by numbers in 10
therauce Of q common object, and with the Il
vantagcs and strength which detcrmina:ic b.
and union impart 10 them, they assume u
grave importance Of a conspiracy, and th
peace and order OF society require their
preston.
This is also the case as 10 unlawful assent
biies
THE GIsT or TUE OFFENCE.
Prom the nature of this offence no compre-
hensive rule can be laid down which shall IN
clude all instances Of II, but the authorities
seem 10 agree that tho gist Of the offence isthe
conspiracy, and that conspiracy is a CON
federacy 10 do an unlawful act or laWiul u
by unlawful means, whether TO the prejudice
of an Individual or the public; but 10y "un-
lawful il is not intended 70 mean that the acts
agi aed TO be done must be criminal; IL Il
enough II they are wrongful aud win an lin-
proper or evil ntent-thus:
Ithas been held that threats, intimidation. OF
any forcible MEANS other than lawfal competl-
tOn, are unlawful.
THE INTENT.
To threaten another in order TO deter II.
from doing some lawful act, or 20 compel hi "a
to do an unlawful one, or with intent 10 cXto q,
money from him, or 10 obtain any other bene II
10 those who make use Of the threat, has alwa''
heen considered a misdemeanOr at c0mmo
law.-Dear Cr Ca, 1892. This has boon O.
nounced a. the law in Virginia Tor greet
II should also be stated that the intent wiz
which an act H. done must always be taken 10
consideration In arriving at the legahty OF o
,ransacfion And I'm Siis connection call 20
tentiou 70 the fact that the law looks at the iu-
tent rather shan the motive, The Intent Is Tie
immediate purpose with which the act Il douc,
while the motive IS the desire in the mind -
attain some ultimate object. Thus the man
Wis sets fire to his neighbor's grain 10 preyen:
il being manufactured into liquor might he
said possibly, 10 be actuated by good inOllNe :
but the specific intent Of that act would DO -
destroy his neighbOrs property, ana that IL
tent the law brands ~ evil and II refuses 70 Ia
ouire further into the mOtive.-Mays Cr l.,
Ia When man does the thing forbidden T.
law, moved by the intent prohiblted, IL IL OF u '
avail for him that he also intends au uluhla
good. -
Applying these principles TO the cass at bai
! consider il well established that any con
sniracy formed and intended directly or indi-
rectly 10 prevent the carrying on OF any lawiul
business or 20 injure the business oil any one
hy wrougfuliy preventing those VINO "ouiu Dc
customers from buying anything tromt OF en-
r1ovtne the representatives OF said business py
threats. intimidation, or other forcible means
il unlawful, and hence conspiracy 20 lhJuro
ruin. break up, anu uVShps
BaughInan Brothers by threatening 10 90 All III
their power TO break up and destroy the DUST
ness OF the customers Of said hrm II they there-
after bought anything from SAID hrin or en-
Moved them, is unjust, Illegal, and criminal
II the threat TO do all ia their power to break
mn and destroy the business Of the customers
OF the said Baughman Brothers could convey
me ideA that IL was the intention OF the conspl-
r,torr 10 DO IL by fair and lawful competition.
which might, by reducing their receipts ana
consequently their profits, possibly break up
| and destroy the business OF the customers, yer
| the effect would be TO iniure, rum, break up,
J and destroy the business OF Baughman BrOthers
| Inv means OF threats, intimidation, ana torco
! anDIied 10 the customers OF said urn, conpei-
| ling them unfairly and Involuntary 10 Hlth-
/ draw their patronage from said firm.
| In the case Of Payne ~. Railroad Company.
| "a Tenn. b2f, IL was held that, fthe DEFEND
snts hy means Of threats and intimidstions,
! have driven away plaintiffs customers, ana
| thus destroyed his trade, they have injured
| MIN by an unlawful act, are liable 70 nun
| In damages, whether they did II wickedly ana
msIiciOusly or not For IL is unlawful 10
| ,hrsafen and intimdate ones customers; and
| me Ios. Of trade is the natural aud pIoximate
result Of such acts"
OFFENCES AUTuORlTiks.
| Scveral Authorities have been cited by the
| defence for the purpose OF showing that all
| threats are not unlawful. In the case OF Payne
| - Railroad Company, Just referred TO. threats
| were construed 70 mean "a declaration OF an
! Intention or determination 10 lnlure another
| NV Inc commission OF some unlawful act"
| The other cases go 70 show tha' whSre one me